|
Post by fletcherfu24 on Oct 7, 2009 21:10:28 GMT 12
Put 'em on Trademe $1 reserve......buyer to pick up.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 7, 2009 21:15:32 GMT 12
If you might recall Poolguy, somebody did put them onto Tradme with $1 reserve on them about two years ago, and the then-Government was not best pleased about it. Trademe removed the auction.
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Oct 7, 2009 21:32:14 GMT 12
So, has Keithie put out a press release yet with his 'balanced' views about the proposed closer military ties with the evil, baby killing US of A? Can't wait to read that one.........................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Oct 7, 2009 21:33:56 GMT 12
Wayne Mapp says " we are hoping to turn an agreement , into a actual contract "
|
|
|
Post by sqwark2k on Oct 7, 2009 21:34:32 GMT 12
I would imagine the 3 frames kept in 1 hangar without the white latex covering would be pretty close to flight test standard. Results based on flight tests of these frames would probably be enough to complete deal and ship all frames to states for stateside refurb's.
That's my thought.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Oct 8, 2009 6:54:53 GMT 12
I would imagine the 3 frames kept in 1 hangar without the white latex covering would be pretty close to flight test standard. Unfortunately not. The only difference between them and the white ones is the white raincoat. All need a full strip down and Group servicing (including the engines), replacement of all the lifed components (eg ejection seat carts/safety equipment), OEM modifications and RNZAF SMIs to be brought up to latest state, purchaser specific modifications carried out (ie demilitarise the aircraft, fit GPS and any other civilian avionics they want), full system functionals, repaint them in purchaser colours and then you are ready to test fly. A full Group Servicing in RNZAF service took 6 months per airframe and we had all the infrastructure and trained personnel to do it. All that has to be rebuilt before this can happen. It is a MASSIVE undertaking, but is doable if the right people are thrown at it.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Oct 8, 2009 7:08:03 GMT 12
Never used my ar**! www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2942009/Skyhawk-sale-to-US-loomsSkyhawk sale to US looms By TRACY WATKINS - The Dominion Post Last updated 05:00 08/10/2009 The covers could finally be lifted on New Zealand's mothballed Skyhawk fleet, with a sale imminent more than four years after it was first trumpeted. Defence Minister Wayne Mapp confirmed last night the sale had finally got the green light from the United States Government and it was now a case of concluding a sale and purchase agreement. The sale of the Skyhawks to Arizona-based Tactical Air Services was announced in 2005 but has been stalled by the need to get US approval. It has cost $130,000 a month to keep the jets mothballed. They are being sold for $155 million. Mr Mapp said the only thing that stood in the way of a sale now was the buyers getting the money together. "It's now essentially a contractural issue." TAS is expected to send over pilots soon to familiarise themselves with the aircraft. There have been claims that the Skyhawks may no longer be fit for sale after being mothballed so long but Mr Mapp said that was not an issue. "A little bit of money will have to be spent on them. It's what you'd expect. Nothing extraordinary or unusual." The National Party actively campaigned against the sale of the Skyhawks for several years, but Mr Mapp said it was now accepted they were not needed. "The air force is well beyond worrying about Skyhawks and frankly the best outcome is to have them now sold. I have a basic utility test which is ... the defence force should have what they use [and] they simply don't need strike aircraft. They were never used. So they just failed the utility test." The green light to sell the aircraft comes as the new US administration also looks to relax its 25-year ban on military training and exercises between the New Zealand and American defence forces. The ban was put in place in protest at New Zealand's anti-nuclear legislation and can only be circumvented with a presidential waiver, which the US is now reviewing. Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully announced the US review in April. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell told One News the ban was absurd, though New Zealand's isolation had been "self-imposed". Though the presidential waiver was likely to remain in place, it could be loosened. Mr Mapp said things had moved on since the nuclear row and Anzus bust-up of the mid 1980s. "We do expect an improvement, there's no question about that. But it will be a progressive improvement."
|
|
|
Post by sqwark2k on Oct 8, 2009 8:08:58 GMT 12
As far as I'm aware they were never operationally deployed anywhere and you can't really call 1 jet firing 20-30 rounds across the bow of a illegal fishing trawler 30yrs ago as a "of course they were used" argument. I still don't believe we can justify a jet combat force, but do believe we should up our committment to an ANZAC force, increasing inter-operability by providing more transport and helicopter resources whilst Oz maintain the fast jet capability.
* Disclaimer - Stated figures of rounds expended a best guess estimate and 30yrs ago grabbed from thin air but it was a hell of long time ago. :-)
|
|
|
Post by obiwan27 on Oct 8, 2009 8:23:37 GMT 12
So this begs the question: How does the RNZAF defend NZ airspace?? What does it do in the event of an unidentified aircraft entering NZ airspace. What about an airliner that is approaching NZ airspace that has lost communications?? We used to have the capability to send up an armed response in the event of the worst possible scenario, now we just cross our fingers and hope for the best?? In the event of illegal fishing trawlers what do we do? Take their photograph? Send an Orion to fire a Harpoon anti shipping missile at it? The political masters of our Defence Force are a bunch of Muppets (regardless of which Govt) clearly they don't understand the role of the Air Force, or it various units evidenced by the disestablishment of the Strike Wing in the first place. We should be able to defend our own airspace but thanks to the Muppets in Disneyland we cannot.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Oct 8, 2009 8:49:49 GMT 12
$130 000 a month. I would like to see an itemised account for that. How long have they been sitting behind a fence doing nothing. Must be gold plated fencing wire.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 8, 2009 9:00:00 GMT 12
They were used, to promote New Zealands foriegn policy by participating in FPDA and other commitments. It's all about projecting national power, and that's what they did.
2 SQN flew them full time in Australia, and 75 spent months each year flying them in Asia and Australia.
That's using them. That's showing our regional neighbours and trading partners that we are active members of the community and a country to be taken seriously, both militarily and diplomaticaly.
Just considering 'using them' as dropiing bombs on bad guys is pretty narrow minded and ignorant of the NZDFs purpose as a tool for projecting national power.
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Oct 8, 2009 9:03:21 GMT 12
No Minister
They could have been used on a number of occasions. I wonder how many people remember that they were offered up for the first gulf war, snapped up in the early lollie scramble. But by the time the politicians deliberated - and gave the official approval to talk through the concept, it was too late there were more than enough attack aircraft to do the job but not enough logistics aircraft, hence the C-130 deployment. Our decision making was just not agile enough.
- Hardly the capability's fault.
It appears from the minister's statement we still have some lessons waiting to be re-learned:
An example we should look at is Timor. Timor could have cooked off and if it had, then having a good CAS aircraft would have been decisive. (Their presence in the Orbat may have contributed to the stability). The real hard politik of this is 20 -30 body bags at Ohakea from a descent Infantry Contact ! - yes this is the reality of War - yes it does happen - and for every body bag, there's probably twice the number in non fatal casualties. If you know your Vietnam History (and I know Wayne does), there were copious situations where Infantry Coys came off worse for wear (and not just US ones seeking engagement) and also plenty of situations of people saved by close air support. For a small nation this should be a particular concern as it will reappear one day Those who have seen the end of war are the dead!
As an adjunct, if the public thought that the RAAF could have done this as well as the A-4, they are, in my opinion wrong -(the argument of let other people do it). The F-18s at the time had been focused on Air to Air mission after getting touched up buy the Malaysians a few years earlier (shudders went all they way to Washington and Aussies got the AMRAAM). An F-18 was photographed at Ohakea once with rocket pods on just to prove that they could be put on! As for the Pig well, I think as far as risk /cost and utility the RNZAF A-4 vs the Pig in Timor doing CAS for real - no competition. I think if the situation in Timor demanded CAS then the RNZAF would probably have been flying for the Aussie Army as well. The devils advocate on this could be that a US carrier could have done this.
This is a profession at arms issue - The A-4 is still the ideal platform for our region. - Regional engagement defined as your back yard where you have NO realistic choice but to be involved.
Soft Politik. The Asean nations don't like standing Army's on their soil (who can blame them) - hence the NZ Army Batallion return. -Things have moved on since the 1960s. A credible A-4 team that rocked up every now and then and did a good job gained NZ huge Kudos with these nations. (Trade). So we used them all the time!!!!!
So lets recap what the A-4 capability gave us:
The ability to do CAS in our region if it gets dicey. We forget this. The ability to get our Navy and Army to DLOC for coalition operations. We forgot this and now we really struggle. Good will military exchange with Asean nations in an area THEY appreciated. The ability to monitor what these nations were doing with Air Power through such exchanges. The ability to do serious coalition operations (Iraq - AG) if required. Yes the A4- could be doing similar work to the A-10s in AG The point has been already raised overseas in some circles that cheap dedicated CAS platforms like the A-4 ( and its Dad the A-1) should still part of the tool box, and their modern equivalents are not with us.
All for the cost of probably an..... NH90 Sqn?
All those engineer boffins who point out the increased age and airframe costs...I counter by pointing out that many nations are still using A-4s, it was not impossible to keep the A-4 going (will be soon) and that to keep the A-4 in service would have been better than no Air Power capability at all. Future war is going to get very complex and we are going to need a broad range of tools and options to achieve our missions. The Timor example above also showed how although we remind ourselvse not to fight the last war, we do forget basic ABCs sometimes.
IMHO The real issues here and on all the threads re A4 et al, is that what's been missing is Joint Development of capabilities (not Army naffing off to buy LAV lemon and RNZAF off to buy F-16) and acceptance/understanding of Air Power. Things don't change that much and when you think of the state of the play with the RNZAF today, Boom Trenchards view would we have chosen option one, an Air force subservient to the Army and Navy needs. Air Power is not recognised in this country as an effect all on its own. The chicken egg scenario is that to do this, we need strong political leadership and guidance as to what they want the NZDF to do. I think you will find this is the heart of the matter. The political leaders have no real understanding of the profession at Arms and yet make the most crucial decisions. In theory they take guidance from the MoD - well hmm...
My money is on the UAVs - when you get down to it, the future and new technology in Mil Aviaiton. Our Air Force is a sleeping giant in this area.
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Oct 8, 2009 9:05:32 GMT 12
You make some very good points obiwan , I too would prefer we had some means to defend our airspace , HOWEVER , defend it from what ? Its just not practical to maintain a strike force in case of a " worst case scenario " , that probabally wont happen .Worse case would probabally be terrorism , rather than being openly attacked ( because of our isolation ) , however there is little likelyhood that we would be able to stop that , even if we had a strike force ( as usa found out ) . As for fishing trawlers , we still have a navy , and if they cant intercept , then a few photos with the intention of tracking them down latter is probabally enough . It is only a few fish afterall , and the cost of firing at them from a strike aircraft is likely much higher than the fish they steal . That said , Id still like us to have a strike wing .
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Oct 8, 2009 9:09:15 GMT 12
$130 000 a month. I would like to see an itemised account for that. How long have they been sitting behind a fence doing nothing. Must be gold plated fencing wire. That includes the Macchis. Keeping them airworthy has soaked up most of it.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Oct 8, 2009 9:13:25 GMT 12
As far as I'm aware they were never operationally deployed anywhere and you can't really call 1 jet firing 20-30 rounds across the bow of a illegal fishing trawler 30yrs ago as a "of course they were used" argument. I still don't believe we can justify a jet combat force, but do believe we should up our committment to an ANZAC force, increasing inter-operability by providing more transport and helicopter resources whilst Oz maintain the fast jet capability. * Disclaimer - Stated figures of rounds expended a best guess estimate and 30yrs ago grabbed from thin air but it was a hell of long time ago. :-) I think it was 53 rounds. In my time on Skyhawks we were put on standby for operational deployment three times: for the 1990/991 Gulf War, 1999 East Timor conflict and in September 2001. Actual use of an Air Combat Capability is a last resort option. The fact that we existed was a deterrent, particularly in East Timor.
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Oct 8, 2009 9:17:05 GMT 12
On the Airspace issue. There is no way a Sqn of A-4 could defend the Huge Airspace of NZ. Its a flawed concept. If it you really want to go through the scenario. Govt would be forced to face the reality that said Airliner would be a threat to largest population Area - Auckland - hopefully there is an ANZAC class frigate nearby - usually is, drop it with SAMs. If its Friday night were're stuffed as the crew will be ashore drunk. If the FFG is not near Auckland - oh well suck it up your going to have to learn what London did during the Blitz- bombing us (in this case with a Mad suicidal Airliner) will hurt us but life will go on and it won't break us. Get the police out to protect large numbers of immigrants as its going to get feral real quick. Re - my earlier post if the Govt decides that its Defence Policy to defend our Airspace then defend it - work out the force structure and tools require and crank on. In which case Russian Missiles will probably be cheapest in the tender, not a close air support airframe. Oh, and if we had the A-4s (or F-16s) it wouldn't just be the Navy not fit for duty on Friday night.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Oct 8, 2009 9:19:24 GMT 12
No Minister They could have been used on a number of occasions. I wonder how many people remember that they were offered up for the first gulf war, snapped up in the early lollie scramble. But by the time the politicians deliberated - and gave the official approval to talk through the concept, it was too late there were more than enough attack aircraft to do the job but not enough logistics aircraft, hence the C-130 deployment. Our decision making was just not agile enough. - Hardly the capability's fault. It appears from the minister's statement we still have some lessons waiting to be re-learned:An example we should look at is Timor. Timor could have cooked off and if it had, then having a good CAS aircraft would have been decisive. (Their presence in the Orbat may have contributed to the stability). The real hard politik of this is 20 -30 body bags at Ohakea from a descent Infantry Contact ! - yes this is the reality of War - yes it does happen - and for every body bag, there's probably twice the number in non fatal casualties. If you know your Vietnam History (and I know Wayne does), there were copious situations where Infantry Coys came off worse for wear (and not just US ones seeking engagement) and also plenty of situations of people saved by close air support. For a small nation this should be a particular concern as it will reappear one day Those who have seen the end of war are the dead!As an adjunct, if the public thought that the RAAF could have done this as well as the A-4, they are, in my opinion wrong -(the argument of let other people do it). The F-18s at the time had been focused on Air to Air mission after getting touched up buy the Malaysians a few years earlier (shudders went all they way to Washington and Aussies got the AMRAAM). An F-18 was photographed at Ohakea once with rocket pods on just to prove that they could be put on! As for the Pig well, I think as far as risk /cost and utility the RNZAF A-4 vs the Pig in Timor doing CAS for real - no competition. I think if the situation in Timor demanded CAS then the RNZAF would probably have been flying for the Aussie Army as well. The devils advocate on this could be that a US carrier could have done this. This is a profession at arms issue - The A-4 is still the ideal platform for our region. - Regional engagement defined as your back yard where you have NO realistic choice but to be involved. Soft Politik. The Asean nations don't like standing Army's on their soil (who can blame them) - hence the NZ Army Batallion return. -Things have moved on since the 1960s. A credible A-4 team that rocked up every now and then and did a good job gained NZ huge Kudos with these nations. (Trade). So we used them all the time!!!!! So lets recap what the A-4 capability gave us: The ability to do CAS in our region if it gets dicey. We forget this.The ability to get our Navy and Army to DLOC for coalition operations. We forgot this and now we really struggle.Good will military exchange with Asean nations in an area THEY appreciated. The ability to monitor what these nations were doing with Air Power through such exchanges. The ability to do serious coalition operations (Iraq - AG) if required. Yes the A4- could be doing similar work to the A-10s in AG The point has been already raised overseas in some circles that cheap dedicated CAS platforms like the A-4 ( and its Dad the A-1) should still part of the tool box, and their modern equivalents are not with us. All for the cost of probably an..... NH90 Sqn? All those engineer boffins who point out the increased age and airframe costs...I counter by pointing out that many nations are still using A-4s, it was not impossible to keep the A-4 going (will be soon) and that to keep the A-4 in service would have been better than no Air Power capability at all. Future war is going to get very complex and we are going to need a broad range of tools and options to achieve our missions. The Timor example above also showed how although we remind ourselvse not to fight the last war, we do forget basic ABCs sometimes. IMHO The real issues here and on all the threads re A4 et al, is that what's been missing is Joint Development of capabilities (not Army naffing off to buy LAV lemon and RNZAF off to buy F-16) and acceptance/understanding of Air Power. Things don't change that much and when you think of the state of the play with the RNZAF today, Boom Trenchards view would we have chosen option one, an Air force subservient to the Army and Navy needs. Air Power is not recognised in this country as an effect all on its own. The chicken egg scenario is that to do this, we need strong political leadership and guidance as to what they want the NZDF to do. I think you will find this is the heart of the matter. The political leaders have no real understanding of the profession at Arms and yet make the most crucial decisions. In theory they take guidance from the MoD - well hmm... My money is on the UAVs - when you get down to it, the future and new technology in Mil Aviaiton. Our Air Force is a sleeping giant in this area. Well said! You should send this to the media and our ill informed Defence Minister. BTW I hope you made a submission to the recent Defence Review. Your thinking is spot on.
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Oct 8, 2009 9:34:19 GMT 12
Skyhawkdon,
Our Defence Minister personally is a very capable and smart guy and he is doing the best job he can - I'm sure. I'm sure his statement is based on the fact that economically they realise they cant afford to re-generate the capability. If he is ill informed its our collective job to inform him. What I found refreshing is the news article on UAVs. this did not come from Defence, they have been dragging the chain on UAVs for years. I bet it came from the Minister shaking the tree. That article is priming the public for their acquisition.
|
|
|
Post by philip on Oct 8, 2009 9:34:39 GMT 12
Actual use of an Air Combat Capability is a last resort option. The fact that we existed was a deterrent, particularly in East Timor. Same rings true for nuclear weapons, haven't been used in over 50 years only because people have them
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Oct 8, 2009 9:54:01 GMT 12
I forgot here are a few more credible benefits of the A-4 Capability in NZ: It kept us in the Air Power game with Combat Technology - Air to Air and Air to Ground. (5 Nation stuff) 2 Sqn undoubtedly provided huge benefits to ANZAC CDR Lets face it, until reality sets in, most Pilot recruits want to fly jets so huge recruiting pull for the rest of the Airforce. Recon- yes they were used to conduct recon - no more will be said on this as it definitely not for open forum. Fast Jet training benefits to the entire RNZAF Pilot gene pool. Aside from CAS the other realistic offensive capability that was viable for the region and the platform was maritime strike. The RNZAF was internationally known for its skill in this area.
We really did throw the baby out with the bathwater
|
|